If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

On the pharmaceutical thing, as a former employee of a big pharma company, the general rule for that company was it costs approximately $1B in R&D for every successful drug that makes it to market (due to massive attrition for each phase in drug development). This is mostly thanks to (necessary!) regulation (a small fraction of R&D is actual pure 'lab' work, something like 80-90% cost is on the clinical trials), but also due to the obvious drugs having already been discovered (think penicillin) and the new targets that are out there are really hard to hit.

Patent life is about 15 years (most countries) FROM creation of the drug itself (in the lab), so if you don't get through trials quickly you are likely to only have 5-6 years before your patent expires. (This also causes many drugs which work perfectly for their target to be shockingly dropped early in the trials programme to cut their losses before they get to market as the patent will have expired. This is shockingly bad, and I don't know how to put regulation in place to stop this happening!)

5-6 years to recoup $1B before generics move in (the patent describes mostly everything a generic needs to manufacture your product, and they don't need to recoup their R&D costs so they can often be 10x cheaper). It's no wonder they spend a lot on marketing (in the US at least, marketing is SEVERELY restricted in the UK). The US is by far the most valuable market to sell healthcare products to (Japan is a distant second, although china etc. are picking up). It's interesting that your current private healthcare system has this knock-on effect, no?

This also has the impact of forcing the big companies to pick only health targets they think they can recoup $1B on, which is why they need to be massively incentivised to help poor countries or to pick targets that only affect relatively small numbers of people. Academic research is funded to pick up the gaps. Is this fair? No, not really. But I'm not sure what the alternative is really. I'm sure there is one, but the economics are pretty complex.

BTW, this isn't intended to be defensive, there's some pretty heinous business practices in there and big pharma still makes a lot of money. But they are finding it more difficult these days and progress in healthcare is slowing noticeably as well.

We have to remember that there's a fair amount of bias against Obama due to race. That's certainly not the only reason--I'd personally say he's a mediocre president elevated by the madness of his opponents--but when you meet the most rabidly anti-Obama people, it's...just, wow. I've met Republicans who gawk in disbelief at the idea that a white person would vote for Obama. Not uneducated people living in trailer parks, either, people with fucking master's degrees. Maybe it's just because I live in the South.

Regardless of reason, the undiluted hatred towards Obama is the driving force of the current Republican party. It's amazing, as it both prevents valid criticisms regarding Obama's presidency from being articulated and holds the promise to wreak unending havoc with America and possibly even the world. This hatred is why Obama was re-elected despite the poor economy and mixed reception towards his accomplishments: the only thing Republicans did was ceaselessly rage against him, and that's not a platform. It's this hatred that has caused the shutdown. And it's this hatred that will, I believe, cause the U.S. to default for the first time in history.

Don't confuse the issue: the Republicans' problem isn't exactly with healthcare, it's with the president. That's not to say they wouldn't have opposed it coming from Hillary Clinton or any other politician, but that their opposition might not have descended into utter madness had there been a different president.

We have to remember that there's a fair amount of bias against Obama due to race. That's certainly not the only reason--I'd personally say he's a mediocre president elevated by the madness of his opponents--but when you meet the most rabidly anti-Obama people, it's...just, wow. I've met Republicans who gawk in disbelief at the idea that a white person would vote for Obama. Not uneducated people living in trailer parks, either, people with fucking master's degrees. Maybe it's just because I live in the South.

And I've met plenty of democrats and independents who believe anyone who DIDN'T vote for him is a racist. There are racist morons on all sides and it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Regardless of reason, the undiluted hatred towards Obama is the driving force of the current Republican party. It's amazing, as it both prevents valid criticisms regarding Obama's presidency from being articulated and holds the promise to wreak unending havoc with America and possibly even the world. This hatred is why Obama was re-elected despite the poor economy and mixed reception towards his accomplishments: the only thing Republicans did was ceaselessly rage against him, and that's not a platform. It's this hatred that has caused the shutdown. And it's this hatred that will, I believe, cause the U.S. to default for the first time in history.

Don't confuse the issue: the Republicans' problem isn't exactly with healthcare, it's with the president. That's not to say they wouldn't have opposed it coming from Hillary Clinton or any other politician, but that their opposition might not have descended into utter madness had there been a different president.

And Obama has stoked those hatreds too by largely taking a "You are with me or against me" stance, in large part due to his lack of experience with washington politics. That, in turn, makes the Republicans want to force failures down his throat and just cranks up the idiocy. The "Us Vs Them" mentality has been growing over the decades, but it is definitely reaching new heights in recent years.

Honestly, I think we all would have been better off if John McCain had won (preferably with a bus running over his VP...). Not because of his politics (although, I AM a fan of his politics when he is not pandering to the republican core), but because the guy could VERY easily be a Democrat (to the point that I suspect he just checked the wrong box years ago and is too ashamed to admit it) and could have potentially been the person to bridge the gap and make the parties work together. But he managed to screw up his most recent presidential run horribly (picked a running mate who makes BIDEN look intelligent, pandering to his party's "base", and being very timid, which is funny because he probably lost to Dubyah because he seemed like a vicious psychopath). We'd still be fucked economically (That was gonna happen either way, although Obama isn't really helping things), but we might have a better chance of actually trying to fix stuff.

But seriously, race has little to do with this. Maybe it makes Obama "more charismatic" which makes him a better figurehead (like how Reagan was ruggedly handsome or JFK could charm the panties off of anyone), but to pretend it is the core issue is just ignoring history (like the people who blame Dubyah or Obama alone for the fucked up economy).

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

Skimmed it and, unsurprisingly, some of the points seem sensible and I am sure the health reform is more or less flawed. But I still can't see how it constitutes an armageddon that requires vetoing a goddamn country.

Skimmed it and, unsurprisingly, some of the points seem sensible and I am sure the health reform is more or less flawed. But I still can't see how it constitutes an armageddon that requires vetoing a goddamn country.

It is in every politician's best interest for this shutdown to occur. Republicans can say "Democrats refuse to negotiate". Democrats can say "Republicans hate health care". Independents can say "Fuck all y'all" Its all about spin

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

But seriously, race has little to do with this. Maybe it makes Obama "more charismatic" which makes him a better figurehead (like how Reagan was ruggedly handsome or JFK could charm the panties off of anyone), but to pretend it is the core issue is just ignoring history (like the people who blame Dubyah or Obama alone for the fucked up economy).

I don't know. I'm not the kind of person to jump at those kinds of statements, and I resisted that narrative for as long as I could. But as I watched the right-wing end of the spectrum ignore valid criticisms of the Obama presidency in favor of frothing lunacy, as I saw the unironic use of the "Thanks, Obama" attitude spread into casual use, when I saw Romney basically won the former Confederacy and little else, it just seemed like it was an element that shouldn't be ignored.

But even if you dispute that, I still think that this furor has more to do with hatred of the man--for any reason you perceive--than with health care in and of itself. And, frankly, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Republicans would have been so hellbent on the utter destruction of healthcare reform that it would have played out in a similar fashion regardless. In either case, I don't think that the real, valuable debate about healthcare reform we could have had occurred. I think the OP realizes this, as the title of the thread shows, and I think that pretending that what's going on right now is a real debate is putting blinders on and pretending to live in a more rational world than what exists.

I don't know. I'm not the kind of person to jump at those kinds of statements, and I resisted that narrative for as long as I could. But as I watched the right-wing end of the spectrum ignore valid criticisms of the Obama presidency in favor of frothing lunacy, as I saw the unironic use of the "Thanks, Obama" attitude spread into casual use, when I saw Romney basically won the former Confederacy and little else, it just seemed like it was an element that shouldn't be ignored.

While the Republicans definitely have been catering to their (very moronic) base and alienating the people who agreed politically but not socially, the problem is also: What were Obama's biggest fuck ups?

Not upholding his campaign promises by keeping Gitmo open, assassinating american citizens, etc: Yeah, that would end well. "Fuck Obama, he is doing what Bush did!"
His various foreign policy fuck-ups and his huge cock-up that was leaving people to die in Benghazi because he was too busy campaigning: Romney DID try to attack on this, but he managed to word it in a way that Obama could smack him down like a petulant child. But regardless, the American people sadly don't care.

That leaves stuff that would take too much effort to explain or "Obamacare".

And to attribute the votes to their being "the Confederacy" kind of makes me question if you are just confirming an agenda. Although, considering that the big issue wasn't slavery or race and was actually "states rights versus federal power", that might actually be apt, as the more rational people arguing against Obamacare tend to feel that many aspects of it should be handled on a state-by-state basis (not sure if I agree, but I also see a lot of the rationale for it in things like California and New York's attack on soda and fast food).

In a nutshell: Romney won the core Republican states that pretty much vote Republican by reflex. Obama won the Democrat states that vote Democrat by reflex. It is not about race, it is about what benefits them (usually economically) and just a sense of tradition. Obama ALSO won most of the "swing states", largely because neither party had a coherent message and Romney made a bunch of political fuck-ups right before the election (and Obama was sitting president, we were sort of in a war, etc).

But even if you dispute that, I still think that this furor has more to do with hatred of the man--for any reason you perceive--than with health care in and of itself. And, frankly, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Republicans would have been so hellbent on the utter destruction of healthcare reform that it would have played out in a similar fashion regardless. In either case, I don't think that the real, valuable debate about healthcare reform we could have had occurred. I think the OP realizes this, as the title of the thread shows, and I think that pretending that what's going on right now is a real debate is putting blinders on and pretending to live in a more rational world than what exists.

And, as I have pointed out in this thread rather consistently: The issue is more about "Fuck the other party", with "obamacare" being the easy target for both sides (Democrats "saved our lives by giving us healthcare" and Republicans "saved the country by cutting back the debt")

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

in television and video an old trick used to stop people getting bored or distracted was to cut to different cameras constantly. That's essentially what he's employing here. I was listening to his video (not watching it) but i could still tell every time he was cutting to a different place in his room because the audio level would change. This is a distraction.
asademonstration i'vetypedthissentenceoutinjarringfontand colours. it shouldprove a little more difficult to read than normal text.

@Lambchops - Yeah, it's a little depressing reading if you genuinely want to 'do science!' and 'fix the world!'. Neither industry or academia seem to hold the answer. Having a browse around, there's some interesting stats on global pharmaceutical revenue etc. from a WHO paper (that's 8 or 9 years old, but fairly relevant to my earlier point) HERE

Their motivation might be wrong (?), but for what it's worth their action is correct. As per the 10th Amendment, healthcare is the responsibility of state government, not federal government. It'd just be nice it the governing parties could remember that consistently.

Skimmed it and, unsurprisingly, some of the points seem sensible and I am sure the health reform is more or less flawed. But I still can't see how it constitutes an armageddon that requires vetoing a goddamn country.

New York Magazine notes on the Republicans' strategy: 'Since they had begun from a position of total opposition to the entire Obama agenda, the newer rightward lurch took the form of trying to wrest concessions from Obama by provoking a series of crises. The first element of the strategy is a kind of legislative strike. Initially, House Republicans decided to boycott all direct negotiations with President Obama, and then subsequently extended that boycott to negotiations with the Democratic Senate. (Senate Democrats have spent months pleading with House Republicans to negotiate with them, to no avail.) This kind of refusal to even enter negotiations is highly unusual. The way to make sense of it is that Republicans have planned since January to force Obama to accede to large chunks of the Republican agenda, without Republicans having to offer any policy concessions of their own.'

At times like this, I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't be better for everyone involved to break the Union up into a couple of smaller independent states. But I suppose that is the whole federal vs. states argument that has been going on forever, and one we're seeing grow in relation to the European Union as well. Perhaps a less radical solution would be a new constitutional convention. Judging by the time and effort spent on dodging its provisions, the American people and their representatives don't really like the constitution they have now, but at the same time it is seen as blasphemy to propose changing it. It seems very odd.

Last edited by Tritagonist; 01-10-2013 at 06:40 PM.

"He has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to
the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free". ~ Luke 4:18

And to attribute the votes to their being "the Confederacy" kind of makes me question if you are just confirming an agenda. Although, considering that the big issue wasn't slavery or race and was actually "states rights versus federal power",

To paraphrase John Green's history teacher when people say the Civil War wasn't about slavery but instead about state's rights:

At times like this, I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't be better for everyone involved to break the Union up into a couple of smaller independent states. But I suppose that is the whole federal vs. states argument that has been going on forever, and one we're seeing grow in relation to the European Union as well. Perhaps a less radical solution would be a new constitutional convention. Judging by the time and effort spent on dodging its provisions, the American people and their representatives don't really like the constitution they have now, but at the same time it is seen as blasphemy to propose changing it. It seems very odd.

To paraphrase John Green's history teacher when people say the Civil War wasn't about slavery but instead about state's rights:

A state's right to what, sir?

Govern themselves and enact laws that benefit their people as opposed to the people of the population centers. And yes, a lot of those laws had to do with (inhumanely) cheap labor as an alternative to machinery.

Yes, slavery was a factor, but it was not the key factor. It just sounds the best and is the best justification for an incredibly bloody war. And, in a lot of ways, it became much easier to swallow as it allow the Union to say "We did a good thing" and it allowed the Confederates to blame their loss on something other than their refusal to move on into the industrial age.
To say "The civil war was all about slavery and all Confederates were racists who wanted to put down the black man" would be like (no need to not drop a g-bomb since the thread title was one) saying WWII (Western front) was all about protecting Jewish people. Yes, that was a factor in the decision (even before the full extent of the atrocities were known) but it wasn't the prime focus and was mostly a "nice side bonus".

Also, not to you Fumarole but just to the thread in general: As an American, I always do love how Europeans feel the need to tell us how we don't understand our own politics and that they know everything going on so much better than us because they read a few articles in their regional news sources and don't feel bad about embracing stereotypes and what not.

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

All the mega rich want all of your money. To much of your population fall for the "any kind of wealth distribution = communism" propaganda for anything to get done about it. That and you need a lot of money to get anywhere politically. So the poor are waiting for a bunch of rich people to give them some of their money with no real way to make them.

That is my very simplified understanding of it.

Also what does slavery have anything to do with the situation now?

Originally Posted by Lambchops

Of all the things to draw a line in the sand on relatively mild reforms to a healthcare system is a frankly bizarre one. I simply don't get it.

As an American, I always do love how Europeans feel the need to tell us how we don't understand our own politics and that they know everything going on so much better than us because they read a few articles in their regional news sources and don't feel bad about embracing stereotypes and what not.

Hey, I read New York Times, which is your regional news source.

Also, I don't say Americans do not understand their own politics. I say I don't understand* American politics. Hence this thread.

*Well, I kinda do. But I am bewildered people actually think like that.